On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 14:15, Stephen Hahn wrote:
> | A new directory hierarchy, to contain otherwise-name-conflicting GNU
> | utilities under their original names, is proposed. A guideline for
> | the provision of 'g'-prefixed variants in /usr/bin is also
> | presented.
What is the definition of "GNU" you're using here? /usr/xpgN have a
very clearly defined "authority" (the specs), but GNU is as least
sometimes used in a much less precise way.
Basically, if someone says "I want to integrate XXX into /usr/gnu", and
it conflicts with the existing /usr/bin/XXX in some way so isn't
eligible to go into /usr/bin, what's the acceptance criteria which an
ARC would use to determine if XXX is *THE* gnu variant of XXX? ("Listed
in http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/"; perhaps? is that a large enough set
of packages?)
As a second note, I suggest avoiding the use of the term "version"; I
used "variant" fairly consistently in the 2005/683 specifically to avoid
any confusion with things like the release-number-versioning of
particular tools.
- Bill
